texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
RogerDoger, Fasteater, Ross lee, vincentdinho, Berettamathews
68577 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 108,415
bill oxner 86,066
stxranchman 57,795
SnakeWrangler 57,222
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,461
Gravytrain 43,068
BMD 41,219
Forum Statistics
Forums46
Topics606,424
Posts11,357,437
Members83,577
Most Online19,184
Feb 5th, 2020
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
hunting the Brazos river #8075331 12/04/20 01:47 AM
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 5
B
Brandonreas11 Offline OP
Green Horn
OP Offline
Green Horn
B
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 5
Is hunting the Brazos river AKA the river bottom public land worth it, or is it just a waste of time?

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8075338 12/04/20 01:53 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 13,190
J
jdk1985 Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
J
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 13,190
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area

Last edited by jdk1985; 12/04/20 01:53 AM.
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8075967 12/04/20 02:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 16,121
J
Judd Online Confused
#1 Creedmoor Fan
Online Confused
#1 Creedmoor Fan
J
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 16,121
Waste of time...


Originally Posted by Phil Robertson
Don't let your ears hear what your eyes didn't see, and don't let your mouth say what your heart doesn't feel
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: jdk1985] #8076040 12/04/20 03:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 499
E
ErnestTBass Offline
Bird Dog
Offline
Bird Dog
E
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 499
Originally Posted by jdk1985
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area


Wouldn't this only be true if you were near a corps lake?

I've never really thought about this, but I guess since the river is public, then the public can hunt the river bottom just like they can move up and down the river bottom to fish?

What are the implications of shooting in the river bottom? Are you practically restricted to bow hunting or maybe a slug gun?

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8076043 12/04/20 03:43 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,119
T
Texan Til I Die Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
T
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,119


Silver spurs and gold tequila
keep me hanging on.
Pretty girls and old cantinas
give me shelter from the storm.
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8076088 12/04/20 04:06 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 518
C
Counselor Online Content
Tracker
Online Content
Tracker
C
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 518
I hunt on a 1500 acre lease where one entire side of our lease is bordered by the brazos. Please be mindful if shooting towards the bank if you do decide to hunt there. Your bullet will be traveling into private land and you don’t want to accidentally injure/kill someone or something.

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Counselor] #8076104 12/04/20 04:16 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,247
F
fonzie Online Content
Pro Tracker
Online Content
Pro Tracker
F
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,247
Originally Posted by Counselor
I hunt on a 1500 acre lease where one entire side of our lease is bordered by the brazos. Please be mindful if shooting towards the bank if you do decide to hunt there. Your bullet will be traveling into private land and you don’t want to accidentally injure/kill someone or something.

x2
Also make sure you know where you are. We has some guys come on our place thinking they were hunting public land. It was a huge mess!


FREE Hog Removal
817-823-8939
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Judd] #8076454 12/04/20 09:21 PM
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 10,431
B
Biscuit Online Shocked
THF Celebrity
Online Shocked
THF Celebrity
B
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 10,431
Originally Posted by Judd
Waste of time...

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8076868 12/05/20 04:48 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,884
T
TLew Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
T
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,884
This deer was shot (not by me) just after swimming across the Brazos.

[Linked Image]

You never know if you never go

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: TLew] #8076879 12/05/20 05:12 AM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,826
Ol Thumper Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,826
Originally Posted by TLew
This deer was shot (not by me) just after swimming across the Brazos.

[Linked Image]

You never know if you never go


This is 100% the truth up

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8077014 12/05/20 01:28 PM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,951
D
DQ Kid Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
D
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,951
Is that a whitetail moose cross??

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: DQ Kid] #8077065 12/05/20 02:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 10,431
B
Biscuit Online Shocked
THF Celebrity
Online Shocked
THF Celebrity
B
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 10,431
Originally Posted by DQ Kid
Is that a whitetail moose cross??

Sure looks like it

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8077990 12/06/20 04:20 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,517
L
Lotto Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
L
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,517
wow

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8078087 12/06/20 10:58 AM
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,943
R
redhaze Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
R
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,943
confused

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: ErnestTBass] #8079719 12/07/20 06:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 331
K
kk66 Offline
Bird Dog
Offline
Bird Dog
K
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by ErnestTBass
Originally Posted by jdk1985
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area


Wouldn't this only be true if you were near a corps lake?

I've never really thought about this, but I guess since the river is public, then the public can hunt the river bottom just like they can move up and down the river bottom to fish?

What are the implications of shooting in the river bottom? Are you practically restricted to bow hunting or maybe a slug gun?


I would check with the local game warden before doing this to see how they would view it before doing it. There was a case out of the Corpus Christi court of appeals a few years ago, where a guy was hunting the tide lands which are public property and the GW cited him for hunting without landowner permission saying he'd crossed over onto adjacent private property. The guy took it up to the Court of Appeals which ruled that even if he was on public property when cited he was still guilty of hunting without landowner permission since the public ground he was on wasn't listed in the annual public lands book he didn't have permission to hunt it.

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: kk66] #8079806 12/07/20 07:08 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 50,519
BOBO the Clown Online Content
decoy
Online Content
decoy
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 50,519
Originally Posted by kk66
Originally Posted by ErnestTBass
Originally Posted by jdk1985
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area


Wouldn't this only be true if you were near a corps lake?

I've never really thought about this, but I guess since the river is public, then the public can hunt the river bottom just like they can move up and down the river bottom to fish?

What are the implications of shooting in the river bottom? Are you practically restricted to bow hunting or maybe a slug gun?


I would check with the local game warden before doing this to see how they would view it before doing it. There was a case out of the Corpus Christi court of appeals a few years ago, where a guy was hunting the tide lands which are public property and the GW cited him for hunting without landowner permission saying he'd crossed over onto adjacent private property. The guy took it up to the Court of Appeals which ruled that even if he was on public property when cited he was still guilty of hunting without landowner permission since the public ground he was on wasn't listed in the annual public lands book he didn't have permission to hunt it.


What bays are listed in annual public lands book?


Donate to TX Youth hunting program.... better to donate then to waste it in taxes

https://secure.qgiv.com/for/gtgoh/mobile
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: kk66] #8079822 12/07/20 07:20 PM
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 499
E
ErnestTBass Offline
Bird Dog
Offline
Bird Dog
E
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 499
Originally Posted by kk66
Originally Posted by ErnestTBass
Originally Posted by jdk1985
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area


Wouldn't this only be true if you were near a corps lake?

I've never really thought about this, but I guess since the river is public, then the public can hunt the river bottom just like they can move up and down the river bottom to fish?

What are the implications of shooting in the river bottom? Are you practically restricted to bow hunting or maybe a slug gun?


I would check with the local game warden before doing this to see how they would view it before doing it. There was a case out of the Corpus Christi court of appeals a few years ago, where a guy was hunting the tide lands which are public property and the GW cited him for hunting without landowner permission saying he'd crossed over onto adjacent private property. The guy took it up to the Court of Appeals which ruled that even if he was on public property when cited he was still guilty of hunting without landowner permission since the public ground he was on wasn't listed in the annual public lands book he didn't have permission to hunt it.


The BRA link someone else posted above is very helpful.

I live on the Brazos. I could hunt the river bottom. Here's my problem. One side of the river near where I live is reasonably populated with small plots. The other side is not, but I've got trouble seeing how you can really hunt the river bed without shooting across property lines. You'd have to be extremely careful unless you were just bow hunting.

I'm fortunate to have a lot of other good places to hunt. I'll probably stick to doing that and using the Brazos for fishing.

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: kk66] #8079871 12/07/20 07:59 PM
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,156
onlysmith&wesson Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,156
Originally Posted by kk66
Originally Posted by ErnestTBass
Originally Posted by jdk1985
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area


Wouldn't this only be true if you were near a corps lake?

I've never really thought about this, but I guess since the river is public, then the public can hunt the river bottom just like they can move up and down the river bottom to fish?

What are the implications of shooting in the river bottom? Are you practically restricted to bow hunting or maybe a slug gun?


I would check with the local game warden before doing this to see how they would view it before doing it. There was a case out of the Corpus Christi court of appeals a few years ago, where a guy was hunting the tide lands which are public property and the GW cited him for hunting without landowner permission saying he'd crossed over onto adjacent private property. The guy took it up to the Court of Appeals which ruled that even if he was on public property when cited he was still guilty of hunting without landowner permission since the public ground he was on wasn't listed in the annual public lands book he didn't have permission to hunt it.

Find the case, and post it here. Could not have happened this way, since not all public lands are listed as "public lands hunt" land. I would encourage the OP to throw himself fully into reading the laws, knowing the terminology and being certain where you are at all times. I would have missed out on some great hunts and really good deer if I had not done this myself.


An unethical shot is one you take, that you know you shouldn't.
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: onlysmith&wesson] #8079894 12/07/20 08:15 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 50,519
BOBO the Clown Online Content
decoy
Online Content
decoy
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 50,519
Originally Posted by onlysmith&wesson
Originally Posted by kk66
Originally Posted by ErnestTBass
Originally Posted by jdk1985
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area


Wouldn't this only be true if you were near a corps lake?

I've never really thought about this, but I guess since the river is public, then the public can hunt the river bottom just like they can move up and down the river bottom to fish?

What are the implications of shooting in the river bottom? Are you practically restricted to bow hunting or maybe a slug gun?


I would check with the local game warden before doing this to see how they would view it before doing it. There was a case out of the Corpus Christi court of appeals a few years ago, where a guy was hunting the tide lands which are public property and the GW cited him for hunting without landowner permission saying he'd crossed over onto adjacent private property. The guy took it up to the Court of Appeals which ruled that even if he was on public property when cited he was still guilty of hunting without landowner permission since the public ground he was on wasn't listed in the annual public lands book he didn't have permission to hunt it.

Find the case, and post it here. Could not have happened this way, since not all public lands are listed as "public lands hunt" land. I would encourage the OP to throw himself fully into reading the laws, knowing the terminology and being certain where you are at all times. I would have missed out on some great hunts and really good deer if I had not done this myself.



That's my thoughts too, because you couldnt duck hunt any where on the coast


Donate to TX Youth hunting program.... better to donate then to waste it in taxes

https://secure.qgiv.com/for/gtgoh/mobile
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: onlysmith&wesson] #8081361 12/08/20 07:46 PM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 331
K
kk66 Offline
Bird Dog
Offline
Bird Dog
K
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by onlysmith&wesson
Originally Posted by kk66
Originally Posted by ErnestTBass
Originally Posted by jdk1985
Like anywhere, depends on the area/day/etc

You may be dealing more with Corp land than "public" land, depending on your area


Wouldn't this only be true if you were near a corps lake?

I've never really thought about this, but I guess since the river is public, then the public can hunt the river bottom just like they can move up and down the river bottom to fish?

What are the implications of shooting in the river bottom? Are you practically restricted to bow hunting or maybe a slug gun?


I would check with the local game warden before doing this to see how they would view it before doing it. There was a case out of the Corpus Christi court of appeals a few years ago, where a guy was hunting the tide lands which are public property and the GW cited him for hunting without landowner permission saying he'd crossed over onto adjacent private property. The guy took it up to the Court of Appeals which ruled that even if he was on public property when cited he was still guilty of hunting without landowner permission since the public ground he was on wasn't listed in the annual public lands book he didn't have permission to hunt it.

Find the case, and post it here. Could not have happened this way, since not all public lands are listed as "public lands hunt" land. I would encourage the OP to throw himself fully into reading the laws, knowing the terminology and being certain where you are at all times. I would have missed out on some great hunts and really good deer if I had not done this myself.


Here's a cut and past of the case from westlaw. It can also be googled with the volume and page of "76 SW3d 537"


76 S.W.3d 537
Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg.
Bryan C. HARRISON, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
John G. BENAVIDES, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Nos. 13–01–547–CR, 13–01–548–CR.
March 7, 2002.
Synopsis
Defendants were convicted upon pleas of nolo contendere in the 36th Judicial District Court, Aransas County, Joel B. Johnson, J., of taking wildlife resource without consent of landowner. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals, Yanez, J., held that: (1) indictments did not need to specifically allege that land on which offenses occurred was private, and (2) erroneous alternative allegation that defendants acted recklessly was not fatal defect, when indictments also correctly alleged intentional or knowing mental states.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes (7)
Collapse West Headnotes
Change View
1
Criminal LawDisplay Key Number TopicsAmendments and rulings as to indictment or pleas
Appellate court will review a challenge to a trial court's ruling on a motion to quash an indictment under an abuse of discretion standard.
1 Case that cites this headnote
2
Indictments and Charging InstrumentsDisplay Key Number TopicsNature, Elements, and Incidents of Offenses in General
In general, an indictment must plead any element that must be proved at trial. Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 21.03.
3
Indictments and Charging InstrumentsDisplay Key Number TopicsPurpose of Accusation
Indictments and Charging InstrumentsDisplay Key Number TopicsNature, Elements, and Incidents of Offenses in General
Indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged, fairly inform the defendant of charges he must prepare to meet, and enable the defendant to plead acquittal or conviction in bar to future prosecution for the same offense. Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 21.11.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
4
Criminal LawDisplay Key Number TopicsRequisites and sufficiency of accusation
When construing an indictment, an appellate court will read the indictment as a whole, applying practical, rather than technical considerations.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
5
GameDisplay Key Number TopicsCriminal prosecutions

Parks and Wildlife Code provision prohibiting hunting without consent of landowner or landowner's agent applied to all lands in Texas, private or public, and thus indictments alleging such offenses did not need to specifically allege that land on which offenses occurred was private, but rather allegations that defendants intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly hunted, killed and possessed wildlife resource, namely white-tailed deer, at particular place, without consent of landowner or landowner's agent, was sufficient, given that Parks and Wildlife Code also provided means by which person could acquire permission from state to hunt on property owned by state. V.T.C.A., Parks & Wildlife Code §§ 61.022, 62.062, 81.403; Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 21.03.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
6
GameDisplay Key Number TopicsCriminal prosecutions

Indictments correctly alleged mental state required for hunting without consent of landowner or landowner's agent by alleging that defendants acted intentionally or knowingly, and thus erroneous alternative allegation that defendants acted recklessly was not fatal defect, given that hunting was not, by nature, criminal act, statute prohibiting hunting without consent of landowner or agent did not prohibit specific result, instead, what made hunting or possessing wildlife resource criminal act under statute was that it was done without consent, and indictments fairly informed defendants of charges and enabled defendants to plead acquittal or conviction in bar to future prosecution for same offenses. V.T.C.A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 61.022(a).
5 Cases that cite this headnote
7
GameDisplay Key Number TopicsOffenses
Culpable mental state was required to convict defendants of violation of statute that prohibited hunting or possessing wildlife resources without consent of landowner, given that under statute, criminal act was circumstance, namely that taking or possessing was done without landowner's consent; to be convicted under statute prohibiting taking wildlife resources without consent of landowner, defendants had to be shown to have been acting without consent of owner, or owner's agent, and must have known that he was acting without owner's consent. V.T.C.A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 61.022.
4 Cases that cite this headnote
Attorneys and Law Firms
*539 David L. Cunningham, Killian, Hayden & Cunningham, San Antonio, for Appellant.
Patrick L. Flanigan, Dist. Atty., Sinton, for Appellee.
Before Justices DORSEY, YAÑEZ, and CASTILLO.
OPINION
YANEZ, Justice.
Appellants were indicted for the state jail felony offense of taking a wildlife resource without the consent of the landowner.1 See TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN.. § 61.022 (Vernon Supp.2002). Both appellants moved to quash their indictments. When the court denied the appellants' motions, they pleaded nolo contendere. In one point of error, appellants now argue that the trial court erred by denying their motions to quash the indictments. Because the point of error raised by each appellant and the facts surrounding each appellant's appeal are identical, we will address them together in this one opinion. We affirm.
1 Appellants argue that the indictments in their cases failed to allege: (1) appellants knew the property on which the offenses were committed was private property; (2) the landowner did not give consent to hunt, kill, or possess wildlife resources on the property; and (3) the appellants knew that the landowner had not consented.2 We review a challenge to a trial court's ruling on a motion to quash an indictment under an abuse of discretion standard. Thomas v. State, 621 S.W.2d 158, 163 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
234 In general, an indictment must plead any element that must be proved at trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 21.03 (Vernon 1989); Green v. State, 951 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). An indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged, fairly inform the defendant of charges he must prepare to meet, and enable the defendant to plead acquittal or conviction in bar to future prosecution for the same offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 21.11 (Vernon 1989); Sanchez v. State, 928 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.). When construing an indictment, we read the indictment as a whole, applying practical, rather than technical considerations. Oliver v. State, 692 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Soto v. State, 623 S.W.2d 938, 939 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
5 Under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, no one “may hunt or catch by any means or method or possess a wildlife resource at any time and at any place covered by this chapter unless the owner of the land or water, or the owner's agent, consents.” TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN.. § 61.022(a) (Vernon Supp.2002) (emphasis added). Chapter 61 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code does not apply solely to *540 private property but applies to every “county” and “place” in the state. TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN.. § 61.003 (Vernon Supp.2002). On its face, the code prohibits hunting anywhere within the State of Texas without the consent of the owner of the land or the owner's agent. This would apply to public lands also. 3 Thus, a person needs the consent of a landowner, or the landowner's agent, to hunt anywhere in Texas. Therefore, an indictment for the violation of section 61.022 need not allege that the offense took place on private property: the indictment need only allege that the person hunted, caught or possessed a wildlife resource in a county or place in Texas, and was acting without the consent of the landowner.4 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 21.03 (Vernon 1989); Green, 951 S.W.2d at 4.
The indictments at issue state that the appellants “did ... intentionally, knowingly and recklessly hunt, kill and possess a wildlife resource, to wit: one white-tailed deer, on San Jose Island, without the consent of the landowner's agent ....” The indictments correctly charge the appellants with hunting and possessing a wildlife resource in a county or place in the state, without the consent of the landowner's agent. See TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN.. § 61.022 (Vernon 2002).

6 Appellants contend that the State must prove that appellants knew they were hunting without the consent of the landowner's agent and, appellants argue, the indictments do not allege that they were hunting without the consent of the landowner or the owner's agent.
The State concedes that, had these cases gone to trial, it would have been required to prove that the appellants knew they were acting without the consent of the landowner, or landowner's agent. Both the State and the appellants agree that when otherwise innocent behavior becomes criminal because of the circumstances under which the behavior occurs, a culpable mental state is required as to those circumstances, citing McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600, 603 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). In McQueen, a case involving the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, the court of criminal appeals recognized that conduct may be rendered criminal based on: (1) the nature of the conduct; (2) the result of the conduct; or (3) the circumstances surrounding the conduct. Id. The court of criminal appeals recognized that the act of using a motor vehicle is not criminal by nature, and further, the section of the penal code dealing with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle does not prohibit any specific result of the use of a motor vehicle. Id. The McQueen court held that what renders the use of another person's motor vehicle a criminal act is “that it is done under certain circumstances, i.e., without the owner's permission.” Id. The court of criminal appeals held that “where otherwise innocent behavior becomes criminal because of the circumstances under which it is done, a culpable mental state is required as to those surrounding circumstances.” McQueen, 781 S.W.2d at 603 (citing *541 McClain v. State, 687 S.W.2d 350, 354 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (what separates lawful acquisitive conduct from theft is knowledge of a circumstance surrounding the conduct, that it is without the owner's consent)).
7 We agree that the crime of taking wildlife resources without the consent of the landowner under section 61.022 requires a culpable mental state. Hunting is not, by its nature, a criminal act, and section 61.022 does not prohibit any specific result. What makes hunting or possessing a wildlife resource a criminal act under section 61.022 is a circumstance; that it is done without the landowner's consent. Thus, it follows that a person, to be convicted under section 61.022, must be shown to have been acting without the consent of the owner, or the owner's agent, and must have known that he was acting without the owner's consent. However, this does not change the outcome of this case.
The indictments in question sufficiently state the culpable mental states being alleged. A person violates section 61.022 by the intentional act of hunting, catching, or possessing a wildlife resource with the knowledge that he does not have the consent of the landowner, or landowner's agent. TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN.. § 61.022(a) (Vernon Supp.2002). The indictments alleged that the appellants acted “intentionally, knowingly and recklessly” and without the consent of the landowner's agent. The indictments correctly pleaded the mental states necessary for the offense that the State would have been required to prove at trial.
Although appellants do not challenge the inclusion of “recklessly” in the indictment, we note that the incorrect inclusion of “recklessly” in the indictment does not render it fatally defective. Soto, 623 S.W.2d at 939. In Soto, the court of criminal appeals held that an indictment charging aggravated assault was not fatally defective for alleging the culpable mental state “recklessly” as well as the statutorily required culpable mental states “intentionally” or “knowingly.” Id.; see also Kirk v. State, 643 S.W.2d 190, 193 (Tex.App.-Austin 1982, pet. ref'd) (applying Soto; indictment which included “should have been aware,” which was not a culpable mental state prescribed for the offense, not fatally defective). In the appeals now before this Court, as in Soto, no essential element of culpability was omitted in the indictments since the required mental states were alleged. See Soto, 623 S.W.2d at 939.; see also Kirk, 643 S.W.2d at 193. The indictments at issue sufficiently allege the elements of the offense charged, including the culpable mental state, fairly informed appellants of the charges, and enabled the appellants to plead acquittal or conviction in bar to future prosecution for the same offenses.
We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to quash the indictments in the cases now before this Court. We overrule the sole point of error raised by the appellants. The judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.
All Citations
76 S.W.3d 537

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8081633 12/08/20 11:08 PM
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,156
onlysmith&wesson Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,156
Wow. So, if it is public land, you still have to request permission from the state. SMH, I'll keep doing what I been doing.


An unethical shot is one you take, that you know you shouldn't.
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Brandonreas11] #8081896 12/09/20 03:18 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,756
H
huntwest Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
H
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,756
Not all rural public land is legal to hunt on. Many think it is OK but it is still illegal.

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: huntwest] #8081899 12/09/20 03:24 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 18,955
P
Pitchfork Predator Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
P
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 18,955
Originally Posted by huntwest
Not all rural public land is legal to hunt on. Many think it is OK but it is still illegal.

That’s a fact and knowing this river like I do it would be very difficult to keep your bullets from leaving the river onto private on both sides......


Marc C. Helfrich
Retirement Planner

www.insured-wealth.com
469-323-8920
Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: Pitchfork Predator] #8081990 12/09/20 05:29 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 315
D
Daddybigbuck Offline
Bird Dog
Offline
Bird Dog
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by Pitchfork Predator
Originally Posted by huntwest
Not all rural public land is legal to hunt on. Many think it is OK but it is still illegal.

That’s a fact and knowing this river like I do it would be very difficult to keep your bullets from leaving the river onto private on both sides......


We have Brazos River frontage and I agree with Pitchfork Predator... I see where guys hunt the river in our area but I don't know how its done or how successful they are.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

Re: hunting the Brazos river [Re: onlysmith&wesson] #8082047 12/09/20 11:49 AM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,075
A
aerangis Offline
Extreme Tracker
Offline
Extreme Tracker
A
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by onlysmith&wesson
I would encourage the OP to throw himself fully into reading the laws, knowing the terminology and being certain where you are at all times. I would have missed out on some great hunts and really good deer if I had not done this myself.


Good advice right there.

Something to keep in mind is even IF you can hunt, the risk of getting charged with the offense of Trespass by Projectile is enormous. It stands to reason that a GW would cite someone for the offense if the opportunity presented itself, and most GW's aren't known to be forgiving or magnanimous when dealing with the public. Their propensity for issuing citations with nothing more than circumstantial evidence places the burden on the defendant and that burden can be expensive.



Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3